Police in Australia Are Accusing 24 People of Deliberately Setting Bushfires (cnn.com) 176
The Australia wildfires are a countrywide catastrophe, mainly caused by drought and extreme heat, but dozens of people are directly to blame for some of the problem, officials say. From a report: Police have charged at least 24 people for intentionally starting bushfires in the state of New South Wales, according to a statement the New South Wales Police released Monday. NSW Police have taken legal action against 183 people, 40 of whom are juveniles, for fire-related offenses since November 8, the statement said. The legal actions range from cautions to criminal charges. Out of those 183 people, 53 have received cautions or criminal charges for failing to comply with a total fire ban and 47 are accused of discarding a lit cigarette or match on land, according to the police statement. At least 24 people have died nationwide during this fire season. While the fires have touched every state in Australia, New South Wales has been the hardest hit. Further reading: Bots and trolls spread false arson claims in Australian fires 'disinformation campaign'.
Scale (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a directed propaganda campaign (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a huge online campaign to brand this all as "arson" so as to distract and deflect from this being seriously exacerbated by climate change. Australia is the largest coal exporter in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's caused by extremely dry weather exacerbated by climate change. But that won't cause dry trees to spontaneously ignite.
Here our wildfires are caused by lightning, discarded cigarettes (smokers cause most of the incidents along roadways), outdoor motorized activity (ATVs, motocross, etc - either from hot exh
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fuck off, retard. The exact opposite is the case. People like you are trying to blame it all on climate change when it's just fucking arson.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, climate change is contributing to a longer fire season. Yes, we should have acted on climate change long ago. All of us. The whole world. Everyone.
But hey, I'm sure you're happy as long as Rupert is happy. [mediamatters.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There's a huge online campaign to brand this all as "arson"
You think 24 cases are some "branding campaign"? Mate, the entire fucking continent is on fire. We have more than enough blame to go around.
Climate Change
Arson
Accidents
Funding of firefighting services
Protests against backburning
Reduction in backburning funds
Climate change causing weather patterns which prevent backburning while blowing a cool breeze making it pleasant for protesters to stand outside smoking a cigarette which may fall from their mouths.
Let the "branding" go on. We can dedicate a state per de
Re: (Score:2)
I’m not worried about people who want to raise awareness about climate change. It’s the pol
Re: (Score:2)
They obtained all the power they don't need and shouldn't have by taking donations from the fossil fuel industry and other large corporations. We're just trying to take it back. After all, those politicians should be working for the people, not large corporations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's a directed propaganda campaign (Score:5, Informative)
Oh please. What money or power is to be had by addressing climate change? The money and power is in protecting the status quo, you know, the ones who currently have all the money and power. The only thing you get from addressing climate change is death threats and hate mail.
Who do you think is giving money and power to politicians that want to deal with climate change? How is fixing this problem different than fixing any other problem that.
You say "You think the climate change politicians don't accept donations from specific parties to spout their line also?" but you do not state who YOU think are donating to politicians. If you had any evidence this is happening, you would present it. I have a ton of evidence that fossil fuel companies both know climate change is real, and have been paying politicians to ignore it.
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
https://www.marketforces.org.a... [marketforces.org.au]
Re: It's a directed propaganda campaign (Score:2)
What money or power is to be had by addressing climate change?
I hate echo-chamber morons in general and denialists in particular (if you know so little about science that you're susceptible to transparent stupidity, you need to just keep your fucking mouth shut). That having been said, there are always profits to be made during times of change and shifts in power... and no, it's not likely that the climatologists will try to 'tilt things in their favor.' The politicians, on the other hand...
Re: (Score:2)
Not an example. You just named a generic industry, without providing evidence of what you think they do. So lazy. Just intellectually bankrupt. You should be ashamed of this pathetic attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could hire a lobbyist, doesn't mean I have any pull with government. There is no comparison between the power of the entrenched and century-old fossil fuel industry, and the upstart green energy industry.
Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. What money or power is to be had by addressing climate change?
Are you fricking kidding us?
There's tremendous power. Using "climate change" as a justification, governments could heavily limit everything in your life, from power usage to what foods you eat to what you wear to how you get around. Governments could claim almost complete power over you in the name of "climate emergency", as they can in times of declared war. And there's not only profit in power, power attracts those that would rule you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Green New Deal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. Climb down off your soap box. You think the climate change politicians don't accept donations from specific parties to spout their line also? Or is that ok because that is your position. You really are very narrow minded and high and mighty aren't you.
One difference is that I can NAME the people contributing to the climate denial funding, and show dollar amounts.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Can you provide any citations at all that support your argument?
If not, you're the high and mighty (and delusional) one.
Re:It's a directed propaganda campaign (Score:4, Insightful)
One difference is that I can NAME the people contributing to the climate denial funding, and show dollar amounts.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Can you provide any citations at all that support your argument?
If not, you're the high and mighty (and delusional) one.
Do you want names before or after the pivot point that is Al Fucking Gore?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. Climb down off your soap box. You think the climate change politicians don't accept donations from specific parties to spout their line also?
I know! I used to work purchasing atlases for schools, and the pressure and bribes we had from the round-earthist lobbyists was incredible.
Re: (Score:2)
They obtained all the power they don't need and shouldn't have by taking donations from the fossil fuel industry and other large corporations. We're just trying to take it back. After all, those politicians should be working for the people, not large corporations.
Not disagreeing and I'd like to confuse the issue by pointing out that "We the People" are a minority influence even as we make up the population known as "We the Shareholders."
Re: (Score:2)
If you aren't holding 51% of the stock, you don't matter. Institutional shareholders make up the majority, the big players set the rules. If you are playing a game where the other player has the power to change the rules at a whim, you are a sucker.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that we're holding one set of idiot humans accountable, while the other set is getting fat paychecks. This creates a moral hazard, encouraging immoral and destructive behavior. The environment is a shared resource by definition, we can't let a small group of people profit from destroying a priceless, life supporting system that belongs ton all of us.
Re:It's a directed propaganda campaign (Score:5, Funny)
I've read that all the fires were started by your mom's fat thighs rubbing together. Must be true!
Re: (Score:2)
It is difficult to get a man to understand somethi (Score:2)
Or as I like to put it, Climate Change is years from now and rents due today.
Also, here's a paper showing 100% consensus on anthropomorphic climate change [sagepub.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Anthropogenic (human-caused)
Anthropomorphic (human-like) climate change would be considerably more bizarre, and likely force us to rethink our dismissal of ancient weather gods.
Re: (Score:3)
Arson started the fires, the drought(climate change) is what fed fuel to the fires started by man. Seriously, are you really that narrow minded?
Arson is deliberately setting fire to property, it sounds like these are cases of stupid setting fire accidentally. In 2020 who still throws lit cigarettes out the window??
Re: (Score:3)
In 2020 who still throws lit cigarettes out the window??
Without exception, every day I'm out driving I see someone throw their lit cigarette out the window of their vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to see that all the time, but now it's been... gosh, a few years. It has become shocking to see it happen, because the behaviors have changed so much.
Changed because of forest fires, mostly, and the modern practice of investigating the cause of each one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a directed propaganda campaign (Score:5, Informative)
You're a moron. Controlled burns are absolutely necessary if you want to live on or use land that's in a area that regularly experiences wildfires.
See California's policy of not fucking doing it anymore and then having people move into those areas and then having an entire town turned to ash, with many lives lost.
If you argue otherwise, you're contributing to the deaths of those people.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of cases were accidental or negligent, sure, but TFA stated that 24 people were being charged with deliberately setting fires, including at least one firefighter accused of setting multiple fires.
Re:It's a directed propaganda campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
For Climate Change Deniers. Yes they are that narrow minded, at least in terms of climate change.
But we see this type of thinking all the time.
There is a systemic problem. Creates a situation where one out of balanced influence can cause disaster then some one individual had pushed it out of balanced. That person get blamed, not the fact there is a problem with the System.
Eg. In a work environment there is a process running off data from an Excel File that people maintains. They have to be careful to not break the spreadsheet. Until one day a person accidentally sorts one column in the sheet and saves. Causing the process to run haywire, because it is changing nearly all the records. ...
Who's to blame?
The person who accidentally messed up the sheet.
The IT guy who programmed the import as a way to save the business some money
The Manager who told the IT guy to import the sheet, and not write a separate database for the data.
The VP who didn't budget enough money to create a new system.
The other group who used excel in the first place.
Management in that other group who is resistant to having a new process.
There are problems waiting to happen that is one simple mistake away from disaster. When it happens people instinct is to blame the person who made the mistake, vs look at the process and see it in itself is faulty.
Re: (Score:2)
The process in question is called "capitalism" and yes, some of us have been criticizing it for quite some time.
Re: (Score:3)
except that this is bullshit...
Any process is capable of this... just pointing out one when all are just as possible just shows you are a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a directed propaganda campaign (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. The droughts are NORMAL.
Go look at the history of drought in Australia over the past several hundred years. "Climate change" is not causing the drought in Australia. The drought it part of the normal pattern they've had for ages, long before the industrial revolution in the west.
Re: (Score:2)
The ignition point is mostly irrelevant; fires are going to start (tens of thousands every year in Australia) and you're not going to stop ignition, either accidental or natural, even if arson wasn't a thing.
What's important is the severity of those fires, and our ability to forecast and manage them when they start.
There's been rainforest on fire, here and in the Amazon. That is unusual, or was, we have to suspect this stuff is just going to get more frequent going forward.
I'm just going to assume my next h
Re: (Score:2)
FYI
Fires are hot and cause vertical plumes of rising hot air
The embers from the fire rise along with the hot air, sometimes for thousands of feet
The winds at higher elevations are are not the same of the wind at low levels and can carry embers for long distances in all directions
This has been identified as a primary source for the spread of new fires from existing fires
Re: (Score:2)
FYI
Fires are hot and cause vertical plumes of rising hot air
The embers from the fire rise along with the hot air, sometimes for thousands of feet
The winds at higher elevations are are not the same of the wind at low levels and can carry embers for long distances in all directions
This has been identified as a primary source for the spread of new fires from existing fires
Not assisting with fire suppression is the dry fauna the embers a landing on.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, climate change has been the biggest impact on the spread of fires, since the other behaviors have been going on for decades if not hundreds of years
Re:It's a directed propaganda campaign (Score:4, Funny)
Desiccated dingos ate my baby.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but the statement I made is still true.
Re: (Score:2)
There is recent academic literature suggesting there are as many as 31,000 deliberately lit bushfires (most of them very small scale, one has to presume) in Australia each year. I'm not sure arresting 24 people for starting them should be as big a news item as it seems to be.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor... [bbc.co.uk]
I don't live in Australia so I don't know what the local reaction is to the story, but we have a similar issue here in the States and arsonists piling on to big fires makes headlines.
I know this story shocks me.
Re: (Score:2)
This shocks me: Firefighter arson is a persistent phenomenon involving a minority of firefighters who are also active arsonists. [wikipedia.org]
It seems to primarily effect the same populations that are targeted by fringe groups like the KKK and GOP
Re: (Score:2)
WTF crawled up your ass?
Carelessness epidemic (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These people believe they are doing good because they are causing awareness of global warming or some such shit.
It's a munchausens syndrome by proxy thing.
Same way Jussie Smollet convinced himself he was fighting racism by creating a racism hoax.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a fanatical statement.
Re: (Score:3)
My biggest complaint against cigarette smokers is that a disproportionate number of them seem to see the world as a place to discard their cigarette related trash. I don't even see other sorts of smokers who leave evidence of this around. Look at any curb or bus stop; very few discarded soda cans, chip wrappers, and so on. Cig buttts? Everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
My biggest complaint against cigarette smokers is that a disproportionate number of them seem to see the world as a place to discard their cigarette related trash. I don't even see other sorts of smokers who leave evidence of this around. Look at any curb or bus stop; very few discarded soda cans, chip wrappers, and so on. Cig buttts? Everywhere.
The issue will not go away.
Cities should provide ashtrays.
Re: (Score:2)
Cities should provide ashtrays.
Or, instead of the taxpayers footing the bill for ashtrays, how about the smokers bring their own? Or better yet, stop smoking all together.
Or is that too much like personal responsibility?
Re: (Score:2)
Every smoker litters. Every single one!
Cars use to come with ash trays, but no one ever used them so auto manufactures stopped putting them in (I saw a few in 70's and 80's but none sine the 90's).
But people still smoke, and where does that cig butt go? Out the window.
Oh, and while it's burning, where are they dumping the ash? Yup, even those that throw the butt in the garbage still dumps the ash where ever it pleases them.
Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
The headline is misleading. 24 people have been arrested in NSW alone:
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/... [nsw.gov.au]
Queensland alone has arrested 101 people for starting fire related offenses recently:
https://www.news.com.au/nation... [news.com.au]
Here's another source showing more than 180 people have been arrested for starting fires:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/... [thesun.co.uk]
https://www.theaustralian.com.... [theaustralian.com.au]
Australia has a long history of people setting fires in the bush deliberately or inadvertently. Here's an article on a someone who studied a previous year:
https://www.smh.com.au/nationa... [smh.com.au]
Australia has had hotter and drier years on record without having this level of raging bush fires. Australia has a history of people setting bushfires deliberately and inadvertently. Australia has already arrested over 180 people this summer for arson charges. These things just might have something to do with the fact that Australia presently has a lot of bushfires. Occam's razor just might apply to this situation as well as it does most other situations.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't post a link to the statistics showing hotter and drier years so that claim is a little harder to test, but I'll take it at face value.
For how long, though? The way I understand it, one of the problems is they practically haven't seen rain for multiple years. I'm pretty sure one year of having an average of, let's say 42C, followed by a rainy season, is less hazardous than three consecutive years with an average of 41C and no rain.
Re: (Score:2)
Analysis performed here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowtha... [wordpress.com]
Source data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/... [bom.gov.au]
The lack of rain for multiple years is certainly an issue. Unfortunately failing to perform proper forest management is also an issue.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
https://legalinsurrection.com/... [legalinsurrection.com]
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/... [joannenova.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
User onyxruby is misstating the information in the links they provide.
Being 'cautioned' by police is not the same as being arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish. I supplied multiple links. NSW alone had 24 arrests for arson. That is just one state in Australia. I supplied this link in one of my comments directly from the police department. For the story headline to be accurate and me to be wrong you would have to presume that no other state had arrested someone for arson and that all the other articles that were linked from multiple sources were false. You would also need to offer some kind of citation to prove that Occamâ(TM)s razor has failed spectac
2019 was the hottest and driest on record. (Score:4, Informative)
Australia has had hotter and drier years on record without having this level of raging bush fires
According to the Australian bureau of meteorology, 2019 was the hottest and driest on record. [sbs.com.au]
Do you have a more credible source than the Bureau for your claim that there have been hotter & drier years?
Re: (Score:2)
I drove up to the Sunshine Coast over Xmas and saw a patch of burned out area alongside the freeway - not huge, maybe 30sqm? - roughly exactly where a lit cigarette flicked out of the window would have landed. I cannot imagine how many fires are started through the complete negligence of smokers.
Bring on e-cigarettes!
Bots? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the bots and trolls from The NSW Police force? https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/... [nsw.gov.au]
That's a lot of real arrests for your assertion of false arson. What are you afraid of, that someone is trying to blame arson instead of climate change, or instead of the government? Let them. There's a lot of fire out there and we have plenty of blame to go around.
Selfish back-burning (Score:3)
A lot of this is back-burning, to save your own property. This is also how controlled burns are done, except ideally a controlled burn is lit along a contiguous perimeter so that the fires burn into themselves and go out once all the fuel within that perimeter is consumed.
So the gist of it is you wait until the wind is low, then you start a fire along your property. It slowly travels as it burns deadfall / brush, consuming fire AWAY from your property. Once that fuel is consumed you don't have to worry about fires coming in the other direction. Eventually the fire hits larger areas of fuel, and winds pick up intensifying the fire, and it all gets out of control. But... at least your property is now safe.
The rangers do controlled burns in the mountains around here. They have fire roads (just dirt roads) all over the mountains. Before the burn they use four wheelers that pull a powerful leaf blower trailer contraption behind it. They use these to clean leaves off of the fire roads and push them back into the woods to make sure there's a good barrier. Then they simply light fires along the fire roads to define an enclosed perimeter. The fires all ideally meet in the middle, all the fuel has been consumed, and it goes out. These are in national forest lands though that have no structures in them.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm presuming there is also a fair amount of "I've always done this.. their fire ban is unnecessary!" going on not understanding the dramatically higher combustibility of the area... Kind of like "Yeah that little fire would have been OK normally but you didn't notice the stacks of gunpowder that are now sitting in the corner..."
Especially with the disinformation campaign going on it's hard to see what's really happening here "legally". The stats for how many people who have been arrested for "Intentionally
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of this is back-burning, to save your own property. This is also how controlled burns are done
Nope, precisely none of this is. When you backburn in Australia on your property you inform the fire department that you do it and then the police don't come around and arrest you, unlike what we're talking which is the police charging people for arson.
In fact TFS mentions clearly that the number of people who would fall under your statistic is at most 53 of the listed cases and people who have land to manage are rarely stupid enough to end up in those statistics.
Arson (Score:2)
I blame the Colombian guy from Crocodile Dundee II.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, as we all know, there is always exactly one cause for one effect....
Re: (Score:2)
Because, as we all know, there is always exactly one cause for one effect....
Dude, this is slashdot. Don't get in the way of a good fallacy of excluded middles.
Re: (Score:2)
just like the left wing mind. That is the problem no matter which extreme you exist in.
The real problem comes when people stop recognizing what is extreme or not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
just like the left wing mind. That is the problem no matter which extreme you exist in.
The real problem comes when people stop recognizing what is extreme or not.
Most fanatics are single threaded. The problem with the American right is that in the US the transition from right to left these days is just to the left of Stephen Miller which puts the entire lot of them in single threaded land. It is kind of surreal for an outsider to watch an American call Meghan McCain a liberal member of the extreme left because she said something sassy about DJT. Most outsiders look at even Obama and Hillary and see garden variety moderate right wingers, not members of the extreme le
Re:Wait, what? (Score:4)
How is the Green New Deal radical? I doubt you've even read it, and are relying on Fox News propaganda. How have we moved left? You have no evidence, just bald assertions.
You provide no examples, while this whole story and thread are examples of right wing cognitive impairment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, it is not backed by "data." As I mentioned, and anyone can plainly see, the study itself makes no such conclusions. What you refer to is simply a biased take by "Business Insider," whoever they are.
There's nothing to refute. You can't refute opinion, and that is all that you have presented. Not even specific opinion, just "read this article."
So what, exactly, is so radical in the study mention in the article? Be specific and I'll debate you. Be vague again and I'll just ignore you because this deep i
Re: (Score:2)
Are you not paying any attention? I read the Pew study and linked it, so YOU could tell ME what you think it says. It does not say that democrats are radical, at all.
It says democrats like helping people. What's your problem with that? I suggest you actually read the study before commenting further, lest you demonstrate your foolish insincerity even more.
So I ask you, AGAIN, where in the Pew study (I gave you the link!) does it say that democrats are radical, or moving further left? Failing that (as you wil
Re: (Score:2)
Tracking positions, the left has barely moved in decades, but the right has been getting progressively more radical every year... but part of their mythology is that they are somehow 'the middle' and thus they do not see their own movement.
Re: (Score:2)
Europeans say American politics is right wing in comparison... So I am not sure how that refutes the idea that the left in the US has moved farther to the left over time.
There is data showing that the left has moved farther to the left that was linked. I am not understanding the point of contention. Is the data wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Still trying to pass that propaganda around I see, attempting to justify the radical left wing movement currently underway in the US such as the "Green New Deal". Same as how the past 10 years, leftists tried to claim that the US was moving right wing when all the while it was sliding far to the left; professional, entertainment, and social media are all obvious testaments to that phenomenon as well, yet this was even claimed as Obama sat in the Presidency. If Right wingers are fanatics, then Leftists are fanatics on steroids. And everyone on the Right knows Meghan McCain often has disagreements with her co-hosts as well as holds her liberal viewpoints, she's nowhere near as left as Behar or Goldberg.
One more time, I know people who are actual honest to goodness socialists and even communists. They sometimes play a drinking game that consists of watching a compilation of Fox and Friends, Hannity, DJT, etc ... footage. You pick one and every time your chosen American right wing bozo awards Hillary, Obama, the Democrats, etc. with some ridiculous title like 'extreme radical left wing' you have to drink a shot of vodka. It's a quick way to get really drunk. They think American right wing 'opinion influence
Re: (Score:2)
Cynically blaming "both sides" is lazy thinking, and it perpetuates the problem. You think you are being reasonable, but in fact, you have stopped recognizing what is extreme. Plenty of science shows that the right wing are cognitively impaired, and fear based thinkers.
If you think something on the left is extreme, point it out. What we have here is an example of right wing extremism, so it is your turn to provide an example for your point of view. What you are doing is simply casting vague aspersions with
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
> It's hard to imagine that Australians have become more careless this particular year than in others.
On the other hand, it's easy to imagine that the climate drastically changed this year.
I guess it all depends on what you wish to believe.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Australians have been 'burning brush' as a means to clear grazing and farm land for a very long time, look up Fire-stick farming [wikipedia.org]
Another issue is that people will start fires if they believe they will be paid to put them out, or treated like a hero for putting them out. [wikipedia.org]
For all we know, people are just doing what they have always done, but climate change has made their environment a tinder pile that all went up when any fire was introduced.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's hard to imagine that Australians have become more careless this particular year than in others.
On the other hand, it's easy to imagine that the climate drastically changed this year.
I guess it all depends on what you wish to believe.
Nice reverse. Call Garrett. Climate can drastically change weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>Climate doesn't really change in the course of a year.
No shit sherlock, your entire ecosystem doesn't just dry up in one year either, it takes many years of drought to make the brush susceptible to wildfires
That is why long term climate change stands out as a root cause
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for someone here to post some data rather than speculation, or "Well duh! It must be cause X!"
it takes many years of drought to make the brush susceptible to wildfires
Have they had many years of drought? And if they did, is global warming the cause of that drought? There's a lack of data here to say that. In the last Slashdot article about this someone claimed that the last few years have actually been *milder* temperatures. Then I posted links to data (just from a Google search) that showed no real significant changes at all. So I don't know if we have data on
Right. Just please don't look (Score:4, Informative)
Right, that's why there are more and more wildfires every year* - because it's a process that happens over centuries and decades.
* Please do NOT look up the facts on the number of fires over the last 30, 50, or 100 years. If we found out that there were significantly FEWER fires in the last decade than there were before, it would ruin the narrative. So please don't look at the data. https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/... [nifc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
40,000 square miles --> 26 million acres
That IS a lot.
I know that a lot of land out there is wild scrub, but here in the states 100k-200k acres is considered a large fire. Australia has a lot of emptyish land in the interior, but areas that can support grasslands sufficient for fires to rage are also places that tend to have some farming or at least ranching.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And now the climate change deniers have started a campaign to blame it all on arson. Because Australia is the world's largest coal exporter, and the politicians there really do not want to admit that climate change might have anything to do with this. Despite having been warned, over and over again, that climate change would make bushfires worse.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can see no one has even attempted to blame it "all" on arson. Some of it is blamed on arson. Some of it on other things. There's a lot of blame to go around. We'll run out of blames and causes long before we run out of destruction, death, and fires.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obious troll is obvious but here goes:
me arson in cold & wet country
me put fire in wet tree
fire no spread
me arson in hot & dry country
me put fire to dry tree
fire spread
Could it be that fire spread easier in a dry climate? who knows?
Ss long as it's not due to bad weather conditions exacerbated by climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
O rly?
Does Australia have a history of annual debilitating wildfires wiping out a billion furry creatures and dozens of humans?
If it does not have a long history of wildfires, and as you state, "The current climate absolutely has contributed to the spread of these wildfires" then LOGICALLY the climate has changed... Hence, Climate Change
Why is your brain so broken that you cannot see what is plainly in front of you?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't /. just post a story blaming climate change?
m
They did but they just posted it. They didn't author it or champion it. They are simply the messenger.
Re: (Score:2)
That all these accounts of arson is false does come from a site similar to infowars.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually check, you'll find that this is a targeted set of stories funded by coal barons and other climate change deniers, to try to portray the actual fires as being set by arson, when the primary cause is literally climate change.
Be advised.
Stop spreading memes and fake news stories from climate change deniers.
I don't see why attributing some of these fires to arson goes against climate change when the argument has been that climate change has set the conditions to make these fires as bad as they have been.